Helping lawyers create more productive, profitable and enjoyable law practices

March 31, 2006

Jonathan Stein of The Practice posted earlier this week about his observations of two young associates at a law firm event. The two associates stuck together all night and didn't interact with anyone else. Jon's post provides some tips, especially for young lawyers, about what to do at a firm-sponsored event.

Unfortunately, the tendency for colleagues to stick together at events such as this and not talk to anyone else is very common - even among firm veterans. And it's a huge wasted opportunity. However, I must admit that I've been guilty of this myself. The good news is that these opportunities keep coming, and that anyone can learn to take advantage of them.

Jonathan suggests that young lawyers in this situation should, "drop your friend and go meet new people." For some people, that's much easier said than done. I often encourage people to bring a friend to a networking event, because it can make you feel more comfortable, and sometimes can help you network even more effectively. But don't just stand in the corner and only talk to your friend. Instead, use your friend to help you meet new people.

If you're too nervous to 'go it alone,' here are some suggestions:

1. Set some objectives with your friend ahead of time - perhaps there is a specific person who will be attending the event and whom you would like to meet - tell your friend that your goal is to meet that person during the event. Sharing your goal with someone else makes it much more likely that you'll meet it. You can help each other reach your goals directly, or just agree to follow up with one another afterwards. If you didn't meet your goals, talk about why, and how you might be able to help each other next time.

2. A variation on the above is to make the event a game - challenge your friend to see who can meet the most new people in a specific period of time. But don't forget that the point is to make meaningful connections, not to just collect business cards or make meaningless introductions. Perhaps make it a requirement that you have to find out at least three things about each person you meet. Be creative. Regroup with your friend and share your info. Or better yet, introduce your new 'connection' to your friend. You can agree on a reward for the 'winner' of your game, too - maybe the winner pays for lunch, coffee, or drinks.

3. Pretend you're the host. Make it your mission to ensure that all of your 'guests' enjoy themselves. A self-proclaimed introvert who belongs to a marketing forum with me came up with this suggestion. She says that when she pretends she's the host, it's often easier for her to talk to people that she doesn't know. If the event is one that's sponsored by your firm (like the one Jonathan discusses in his post), in a sense, you are the host. Introduce yourself and explain that you're with the firm. Often, that's enough to start a conversation going.

4. Another self-proclaimed introvert offers this suggestion: volunteer to help out with the event. As a volunteer, or someone who is 'part of' the event, you'll often have access to people that you wouldn't otherwise meet. And sometimes it's easier to start a conversation because you'll have something to talk about. As someone who is 'in the know,' you can answer questions or offer to help attendees find things. Once people realize you have the 'inside scoop,' they'll often seek you out, rather than the other way around. If your firm is sponsoring the event, volunteering can win you points with the boss for being a team player, too.

5. Many of us have a much easier time talking about other people than we do talking about ourselves. When you bring a friend to an event, pretend that your purpose at the event is to introduce your friend to lots of people - to make connections for your friend. You can brag about your friend's accomplishments without feeling uncomfortable. And your friend can do the same for you.

Attending an event with a colleague can reap rewards for both of you, if you're creative and you make it fun.

#1 - Notifying people by memo or e-mail about their colleague, even manager, having been "let go"

#2 - Relying on the informal gossip chain to replace formal presentations of "state of the firm" or goals, visions, and other important news or changes

#3 - "Leakage" of preliminary information (often by owners to select team members) about pending policies, pending raises or bonuses, or other critical economic information, such that a mention or two to friends means pretty soon the whole firm "knows" -- often it isn't even final so the info may be wrong(!)

#4 - Rolling out new programs or policies by memo or e-mail with no formal presentation to personally introduce it, frame it with appropriate background information, answer questions, and create enthusiasm

#5 - Not telling people (hopefully publicly!) that they have done a great job

#6 - Not telling people privately AND constructively how they could do something better

#7 - Telling people anything personal, corrective, or negative by e-mail (and cc'ing others is a very, very bad idea)

I have a few more failures of communication that undermine what would otherwise be a great place to work:

#8 - Not communicating with the firm about new hires (and not being prepared for their arrival)

#9 - Not telling people that a program, initiative or policy has been abandoned (possibly due to lack of enthusiasm or appropriate communication in the first place -- see #4)

#10 - Promoting someone or changing their job description and failing to clearly communicate the change to others on the team - particularly where the change involves a change in authority or chain of command

#11 - Not communicating the 'big picture' to the whole team - failing to let people know how their role contributes to the whole, not informing the team of the results of an engagement or not reporting feedback from clients

and to make it an even dozen:

#12 - Not listening(this could be a list in itself!) - actively discouraging input or acting in a way that sends a message that the other person isn't valued (not being 'present' for the communication - answering emails, doing paperwork or taking calls during the conversation or meeting, having side conversations, or focusing on the intended response rather than being open to another point of view)

Take a good look at the way your firm communicates, and make sure you aren't ruining what would otherwise be a 'great culture' by making these mistakes.

March 24, 2006

I was reading one of my daily newsletters, Early to Rise, and came across an article by Michael Masterson which addressed exceeding your potential by surrounding yourself with superior people. Masterson relayed the story of a young woman who was succeeding brilliantly at her company, but wanted to leave. When he asked her why, she said that although her boss was a wonderful person and an excellent businessman, she had ideas to expand the business and make it more interesting, but her boss rejected all of her ideas because he had a particular way of doing business. Frustrated and sure that she could make a difference elsewhere, she decided to leave. I can understand that, having experienced it myself. And so can a lot of people who are dynamic, committed, and innovative.

As Masterson says in his article, the 'superstars' don't often leave because of money. Sure, money is often a factor, and law firms, like businesses, need to ensure that their top performers are paid well. But, for most high performers, interesting work, personal and professional development, and a chance to contribute to the firm in a meaningful way often mean far more than the paycheck alone.

Masterson's advice on keeping superstars:

Invest in your top performers.

Continually weed out the weak performers and replace them with stronger ones.

Treat your people well by giving them what they need - which sometimes means being tough, but always means being fair.

Give your best people lots of good work to do.

Finally, Masterson suggests asking yourself these questions, and re-evaluating your priorities if you answer 'no' to any of them:

Have I hired anyone in the past few years who is as good as or better than I am?

Am I willing to have someone who is smarter than I am work for me?

Would I give a superstar employee the chance to demonstrate his superiority?

Sometimes it's a leap of faith to allow a superstar to shine, particularly if that superstar might outshine some of those that are already at the top. And law firms often fear that allowing a superstar more responsibility, more ways to shine, more access to clients, more free rein will give them the tools they need to leave and perhaps to take some of the firm's clients with them. But the greater risk is in preventing these top performers from doing challenging and complex work, and from putting their ideas into action. That virtually assures that they will leave. Not only are you likely to lose a superstar, but by consistently treating your superstars that way, you're likely to attract less of them in the future.

March 23, 2006

A February 2006 decision of the New York State Division of Tax Appeals may have a significant impact on taxes paid by retired partners living outside of the State of New York. The decision on the petition of John E. McDermott, Jr. for redetermination held that New York State is precluded from imposing personal income tax on income received from the partnership, where the income is based on the profits of the partnership, and Mr. McDermott is a non-resident of New York State. Mr. McDermott is a retired Courdert Brothers partner, who resided in Connecticut and now resides in Florida. According to the Courdert Brothers agreement, Mr. McDermott was entitled to profit shares based upon his productivity and years of service with the firm.

In 1996, a federal law was passed, barring states from taxing retirement income paid to non-residents. However, in the past 10 years, it has been unclear whether the law included income based on partnership profits as well as income from designated retirement accounts. The state argued that since the retired partner maintained a capital account and was receiving a distributive share of partnership income, that income could not be considered retirement income.

According to the decision, Section 114 of Title 4 of the U.S. Code provides, in part, that retirement income includes any plan in which the income is paid in substantially equal periodic payments, made no less than annually, for the life expectancy of the recipient (and beneficiaries, if applicable), for not less than 10 years.

Administrative Law Judge Thomas Sacca determined that the Courdert Brothers plan met the criteria under the federal law, and that New York State was precluded from taxing the profit shares Mr. McDermott received under the Courdert plan.

March 22, 2006

I was privy to an interesting conversation yesterday among a number of lawyers in response to one attorney marketing himself as the 'lowest priced.' Not surprisingly, some reacted to the issues of 'commoditization' of the legal practice and competition based upon price alone. I think that competing solely on price isn't the best way to go for marketing legal services. But this post isn't about marketing, it's about fees.

One contribution to this discussion was that lawyers shouldn't raise their rates just because everyone else is charging a higher amount for a particular service. This same contributor opined that lawyers' rates should be based upon experience and 'what it takes to be profitable.'

While I don't necessarily disagree that raising rates just because another firm does is the way to go, I have to wonder why some attorneys seem to believe that raising rates is inherently 'bad' - that charging a higher rate when they 'can' do the work for less is somehow unprofessional. Why should lawyers undervalue their services?

Although I didn't probe this particular attorney for further insight, it would seem that setting fees based solely on experience and 'what it takes to be profitable' fails to take into account an individual lawyer (or law firm's) unique skills and talents (as distinct from 'experience'), creativity and innovation. And how does one define what it takes to be 'profitable?' If 'profitable' means that the income exceeds the expenses for that particular matter, how much over the expenses is it 'appropriate' for an attorney to charge? $1? $10? $100? $1000? Why shouldn't a lawyer that brings a unique perspective or a unique way of resolving a client's problem be able to charge more? Are lawyers, as professionals, somehow obligated to limit themselves to a particular profit margin?

Basing fees solely on what's 'profitable' for the lawyer implies that the value of the lawyer's services is determined by the cost to provide those services. In reality, this is rarely the case. We accept that cost isn't the only factor in determining price or value in other areas. It is understood that the price we pay for art, or electronics or clothing isn't based solely on the cost to manufacture those items, but also takes into account the value we place on those items. We accept that the individual that comes up with the 'next great idea' for a product that saves us time and effort is worthy of receiving large sums of money for their invention. But for some reason, many refuse to accept this principle when it comes to legal fees and innovating legal thinking. Lawyers contribute to the problem by 'educating' the public to determine legal fees based solely on the number of hours worked.

This brings me back once again to value based fees; if fees are based upon the value the lawyer's services bring to the client, the amount of the lawyer's 'profit' is irrelevant. Indeed, many times, a client is much better served with a creative solution that takes much less time than a 'tried and true' solution which takes longer to complete. If the lawyer's fee is based solely on the 'quantifiable' input to the case - time and expenses, and perhaps even experience, the lawyer's fee will likely be much lower for the lawyer that got the client the quick, creative result. This kind of pricing puts the lawyer and the client in conflict, and discourages creative, innovative problem solving.

If lawyers focus on the benefits to their clients as a result of the lawyer's services, rather than the number of hours worked on a matter or the cost to the lawyer of achieving the result, chances are that both lawyers and their clients would be much more satisfied and the quality of the legal services provided would be better; lawyers would be motivated to provide the best solutions for their clients - not merely the most costly ones or the ones that take the most time.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that all lawyers that charge based on hours billed are providing lesser quality service. But the inherent conflicts in the hourly billing system are troubling, particularly when this system leads lawyers and non-lawyers alike to conclude that there's something 'wrong' with lawyers profiting from their work or raising their rates. If lawyers don't value the services they provide to clients, how can they expect the clients to value them?

It's worth considering also that higher rates can also ultimately benefit the client. If at least some of the profit earned by a law firm is re-invested in the firm - in the personal and professional development of the lawyers and staff, in recruiting the best people to serve the client, in technology which makes the job easier, faster, more efficient, in researching ways to better serve the client - those 'higher rates' or 'additional profits' add up to a better experience and higher quality service for the client. And obviously, firms that are in a better financial position are often in a better position to give back to the community in other ways as well, by contributing financially and providing pro bono services. Lawyers that are merely subsisting are arguably in a much weaker position and are less able to be effective in helping their clients and the community at large.

But for those of you who still aren't convinced that any of this is worth so much discussion, perhaps Larry Bodine's post about bad word of mouth will change your mind. This isn't really new, and I've pointed this out before, but it bears repeating that a dissatisfied client, more than likely, isn't just a single loss to the firm. Negative experiences with a firm spread. And they probably spread more than 'positive' experiences. Think about this logically - people love to talk about what's wrong - they love to complain. It just isn't as much 'fun' to talk about what's going right as it is to talk about what's going wrong. Sad, perhaps, but true. So 'bad press' is likely to spread faster than good press - unless you really are exceptional.

Bodine's post talks about statistics gleaned from a customer dissatisfaction survey conducted by the Verde Group. Although the survey wasn't geared toward lawyers (it was about customer satisfaction with shopping), the statistics should make you sit up and take notice. Among the key findings were these:

31% of people that have a bad experience will tell at least one other person

64% of people surveyed wouldn't return to a business after hearing about a friend's negative experience

On average people will tell at least 4 other people about their bad experience

Negative experiences tend to be embellished in the re-telling(remember the game 'telephone' when you were a kid?) and can become up to 5 times as damaging as the original story

March 12, 2006

This is my final installment in a series of posts which examines how parenting skills can lead to good lawyering. This post discusses the last three 'Nanny 911' commandments, and how they apply to the attorney-client relationship. You can read about commandments 1-4 here and commandments 5-8 here.

9. Positive Reinforcement Works Much Better Than Negative Reinforcement. Praise, pleasure and pride accomplish far more than nagging, negatives and nay-saying.

Many times, clients come to lawyers when they've got a problem or they're in trouble. Frequently, the problem is of the client's own making. Sometimes, the client makes the problem worse during the engagement. But focusing on the negative doesn't help the relationship. Nor does making the client, or even your adversary, the 'bad guy.' Instead, focus on how you can change things for the better. Focus on what the client did right (for example, coming to you) and how you can work together to get the best result or help the client build something bigger. Remind the client that you're in it together and that you're there to help the client in a constructive way. Concentrate on the end result you'd like to achieve and what you can do together to achieve it.

10. Manners Are Universal. Good behavior goes everywhere.

Think you can treat one client poorly and 'get away with it?' Think again. No matter how frustrating the relationship is, there's no excuse for poor manners with a client. You can be sure that your poor manners with that client won't stay a secret for long. People love to complain and share their stories, particularly 'horror' stories. There's already so much negative press out there about lawyers - don't add to it by losing your cool with a client or treating them poorly.

Good behavior gets noticed. When you're with your clients, no matter how well behaved you are with your clients, they're going to notice how you treat others, too. The client will notice if you're disrespectful to the judge, if you treat employees poorly, or if you're rude to the wait staff in the restaurant. Wherever you are, your behavior reflects on you - good or bad. And clients are likely to assume that the way you treat others is the way you'll treat them, too.

11. Define Your Roles As Partners. It's not your job to keep your clients attached to you. It's your job to let them know who is the 'right' person for the job.

Make sure you introduce your whole team to your clients. Let the client know what each person's role in their case is, and why you've given that person 'control' over a certain aspect of the engagement. Don't let the client think you're the only person that they can or should deal with if you're getting help working on their matter. Let the client know that they can trust the other members of your team to help them in your absence.

Your clients should know what their role is in the engagement as well - whether it's to be accessible to answer your questions, to provide you with documents, information, evidence, etc. Every relationship has two sides, and both sides need to be aware of their contribution to the success of the endeavor.

Finally, as lawyers, we have an obligation to advise a client when we can't handle a particular engagement, or when a particular matter is outside of our area of expertise. Although lawyers are often afraid to 'turn away' business, doing so can actually enhance the relationship with the client, who will see you as honest and trustworthy, with the client's best interests at heart. You'll become a resource for your client, and the client is likely to look favorably upon you, seek out your advice in the future, and refer others to you. You can become a particularly valuable resource to clients if you establish a network of lawyers in other practice areas to whom you can confidently refer your clients. If the client trusts you enough, sometimes the client will request that you stay on the matter and retain co-counsel, providing you with business and an education. It just isn't worth committing malpractice or ruining your reputation just because you're afraid to admit to a client that a matter is outside of your area of expertise.

March 10, 2006

Continguing the 'parenting' series, relating the 'Nanny 911' commandments to clients, here are commandments 5-8 (you can read the first four commandments here):

5. Don't Make Promises You Can't Keep. If you tell them you can recover $1 million, you'd better be sure you can do it.

This is a huge problem for some lawyers. I encountered it when I was practicing, and I still know some lawyers who are notorious for violating this rule. Simply put, it's a bad idea. Making a promises that you can't keep destroys the relationship of trust between attorney and client. It creates expectations that can never be met, and ensures the client's dissatisfaction.

Clients are not likely to forget what you've promised, particularly if those promises involved specific results. No lawyer can guarantee results, and claiming otherwise is playing with fire. But even when the promises don't involve specific results or amounts, lawyers should be cautious about what they tell clients. Back in the days when I was litigating, I often encountered a familiar lament of plaintiff's counsel - the offer of settlement was reasonable, and the cost of litigating further was prohibitive, but they just couldn't convince the client to take the offer. Why not? It was those expectations again - and many times those expectations were specifically set by a lawyer who made a promise that was impossible to keep - even if it didn't seem that way at the time. As a result, both the lawyer and the client were hurt.

Two areas in which many lawyers run into problems are in estimating fees and time demands of a particular matter. Although it makes sense to give clients a benchmark at the beginning of an engagement, there are often unforseen circumstances or delays that can affect both the timing and the fee involved. Where these changes occur mid-engagement, it's wise to advise the client right away. But even wiser is to advise the client at the outset of the possible ways in which these estimates can get off-track. If you can't control the court's calendar, make sure you don't promise the client that his case will be completed in six months.

Thomas Leonard, a leader in the coaching world, advocates underpromising. In his book, The Portable Coach, he says that overpromising "makes you become either a workaholic or a liar," while underpromising means you'll always impress the client. Although he advocates underpromising, he also makes it clear that the value in underpromising is in always delivering more than the client expects.

6. Listen To Your Clients. Acknowledge their concerns. Be open to their input. Then take the time to listen and understand.

This applies in many areas, from marketing to client feedback to day to day handling of client matters. The law firm that truly listens to its clients (as opposed to merely paying lip service to listening) sets itself apart. It may well be the most important tool in the lawyer's arsenal.

Listening, to be effective, must not be merely passive. To truly listen and understand, the lawyer has to put away his or her agenda and stand in the shoes of the client, at least temporarily. To listen effectively, the lawyer must be able to articulate the client's concerns back to the client. The lawyer must also be able to openly accept input from the client, and allow the client to be involved in decision-making.

A good lawyer can listen for and address the client's emotions, not just the intellectual and technical aspects of the job. It involves understanding the client's perspective, and the client's wants and needs. Sometimes those wants and needs are not articulated by the client and require some probing, or long-term listening. Listening effectively allows a lawyer to anticipate obstacles and predict a client's reactions, fears, and concerns, and deal to with them in advance. Ultimately, the client always wants to know how the legal issue will affect his life or his business, and for the lawyer to address these concerns, the lawyer must listen and learn what is most important to the client.

To be most effective, listening must become a part of the firm's routine. It must take the form of periodic and regular communication with clients before, during and after the engagement. It involves tracking of performance by the firm and gathering information from the client. It often involves thorough research into the client's business so that the lawyer can truly understand the client's perspective.

7. Establish a Routine. Routines make people feel safe and give structure to their time.

Routines are another way of managing expectations and making clients feel comfortable. The worst part of any new endeavor is not knowing what to expect. A lot of the practice of law involves routine. As lawyers who have been practicing for a while, we're used to the routines. But often, clients are not. The law is like a foreign language to them, and they're confused and disoriented. The more we can establish routines for the client, and make them familiar with our routines and the routines involved in our area of practice, whether that's real estate, litigation, or any other practice area, the more comfortable a client will be.

Taking a client step by step through the process is an invaluable part of establishing a trusting relationship. If the lawyer can tell the client what to expect at each stage of an engagement, the trust relationship builds as the client sees that what the lawyer said would happen (or might happen) comes to pass. Leaving a client floundering and uncertain about what will occur is simply poor client relations.

Routines can and should be established in communications between the lawyer and the client. If the client knows that there is a particular routine about contacting or visiting your office, the client will feel at ease much more quickly. They'll understand that their phone calls are returned at a certain time, or that they receive communications with a certain frequency. A client that is at ease with the lawyer is more open to receiving the lawyer's counsel and participating effectively in the process. A client that is distracted by uncertainty is one who cannot help her lawyer or is not focused on the task at hand.

Routines are to the benefit of both sides of the attorney client relationship when they are established for billing purposes. When the client knows that the bills will be accurate and arrive at a specified time, the client is more likely to be ready and willing to pay the bill when it arrives. When bills arrive sporadically and are not consistent, the client will be less inclined to pay in full and on a timely basis. Leaving clients wondering when the next bill will arrive reduces the level of trust in the relationship.

8. Respect is a Two Way Street. If you don't respect your clients, they aren't going to respect you.

David Maister posted a comment on my earlier post about thinking of clients as dependent upon our care, guidance and protection. He was concerned that my posts about treating clients the way one would treat one's children might lead to lawyers treating clients in a condescending manner. Nothing could be further from my mind. As this commandment notes, if you don't respect your clients, they won't respect you.

Some lawyers are disrespectful to clients or potential clients in everything from their marketing to their billing practices to the way clients are treated on the phone or in person when visiting the lawyer's office. There's simply no excuse for this kind of behavior. Respect is an essential ingredient in establishing trust. If you've come to an impasse with your client, if it's possible and appropriate for that stage of the engagement, many times you'd be doing yourself and the client a favor to suggest that the client obtain new counsel, rather than proceeding in a relationship where there is no respect.

Listening to your clients (see commandment #6) and seeking their input is a great way to demonstrate respect.

Continuing with the 'parenting' theme and getting back to those 11 "Nanny 911" commandments, let's consider how they apply to clients:

1. Be consistent. No means no. Yes means yes.

One of the most important ways to build strong client relationships is by managing client's expectations. Sometimes these expectations arise out of pre-conceived notions. Sometimes they come from statements made by the lawyer or someone else in the firm. And sometimes expectations result from prior actions of the firm. It's best to begin managing expectations at the earliest stages of the client relationship. Once those expectations are established, it's important to be consistent in meeting (and exceeding) those expectations. But it's also important to eliminate unrealistic expectations.

What the firm tells a client and what the firm delivers must also be consistent. A client comes to expect that the lawyer will contact him at certain stages of the litigation, or when certain activities occur. Once that expectation is established, woe to the lawyer that fails to meet it consistently. Sometimes providing an 'extra' service for a client establishes an expectation that the same service will always be provided, and inconsistent or erratic performance on this account reflects less favorably on the firm than the failure to provide this 'extra' service in the first place.

In his book The Trusted Advisor, David Maister discusses what he calls the "trust equation." One of the elements of the trust equation is reliability - "the repeated experience of links between promises and action" and "the repeated experience of expectations fulfilled." From the perspective of the client, consistency is valuable when it is the consistent meeting of the client's needs.

It is vitally important to the client relationship that all members of the 'team' involved in a client engagement are aware of the client's expectations, and that the client's needs are met consistently, regardless of who is interacting with the client. The client who receives excellent service from one individual in the firm and poor service from someone else is likely to be left with an impression of poor service.

2. Actions have consequences. Good behavior is rewarded. Bad behavior comes with penalties.

This goes both ways. The firm needs to understand that everything that the firm does (or doesn't do) for the client has consequences. Failure to return phone calls or live up to a client's expectations may mean a loss of that client, or that account, along with any referrals that client could make in the future. Clients need to understand that if they don't pay, the consequence may be that the lawyer stops work or withdraws.

There are always consequences for failing to properly manage client expectations. Sometimes, lawyers get carried away with trying to impress a potential client, and in trying to win the business, over-state what they can provide for the client. The consequences of over-stating can be disastrous. By contrast, when a firm provides a client with excellent service, the client often becomes a 'raving fan,' and a source of new business for the firm.

3. Say what you mean, and mean it. Think before you speak, or you'll pay the price.

This is particularly important when dealing with clients, and violating this 'commandment' is what causes a lot of trouble in lawyer-client relationships. Too many lawyers are so concerned about getting the business or convincing the client of their skills that they get carried away with what they promise. Rather than focusing on creating good relationships, their zeal takes them too far. They aren't even aware of what they're saying.

Alternatively, sometimes lawyers make representations to clients just to get off of the 'hot seat' - they tell the client they'll call back and promptly forget, or they say they'll take care of something but don't get around to it.

You must be able to deliver on the promises you make to clients. If you can't deliver, don't make the promise. (See number 5 coming in my next post).

Telling the client exactly what's happening on a matter is another way of saying what you mean, and meaning it. Many laywers avoid telling clients 'bad' news, but the older the bad news gets, the worse it is. Clients respect lawyers that tell them up front what's happening, give clients options and recommendations, and let the clients be involved in the decisionmaking. Clients also respect lawyers that thell them up front that a mistake has been made, and what the firm is doing to correct it.

Saying what you mean also includes admitting when you don't know the answer to a client's question. Rather than making up an answer and having to justify it later, say you don't know and tell the client how and when you plan to find the answer.

4. Partners work together as a team. If you can't be on the same page, your clients won't know who to listen to - and they'll end up listening to no one.

Clients need to know that you and your partners, along with the others that work in your firm, work together as a team. Sometimes that means a client is dealing with more than one lawyer at the firm. This is usually to the client's benefit, since the client doesn't have to worry about one lawyer being unavailable when the client needs a question answered. It's also to the client's benefit because the client gets better service when the right person - whether a partner, associate, paralegal, etc., is the one performing the task at hand.

It is important to ensure that everyone on the team knows the game plan for the engagement and is kept up to date, so that the client gets timely, accurate, consistent information that the client can rely on. If the client has multiple engagements with the firm, each team handling matters for that client should be in contact to ensure that the client is receiving consistent counsel.

But lawyers would do well to remember that they're part of another team as well - the team that's comprised of you and your client. The client should feel he's part of the team. Lawyer and client together are working toward solutions, and both the lawyer's viewpoint and the client's viewpoint need to be considered. The lawyer shouldn't think he can run roughshod over the client, and indeed, doing so can be disaster for the lawyer.

The client is the most important part of the team, and the contribution of the client must be respected. A client is much more likely to listen to the lawyer's counsel if he feels his position has been considered, and if the client and the lawyer can come to an agreement about how to proceed. A client that resists the lawyer's counsel or feels that she is not part of the process is less likely to hear and respect the lawyer's opinion.

March 07, 2006

Last week I posted about the ways running your practice is like parenting in relationship to your employees. This week, I'm focusing on clients.

I was recently prompted to look up the dictionary definition of client. Merriam-Webster Online defines a client as, "one that is under the direction of another: dependent." The secondary definition is the one we're most used to, "a person who engages the professional advice or services of another." But it's the first definition that intrigues me and brings to mind once again the parallels between running a law office and being a parent.

Focusing on clients as people or businesses who are dependent upon you for care, protection and guidance transforms the way we think about and relate to clients.

In my recent post, Do You Know What Your Clients Really Want?, the example of the lawyer who probed deeper with his client and found that the client didn't really want the partner to be the only one handling his file was treating his client the way you might treat a child. Rather than blindly following the client's initial instructions and spending the client's money unnecessarily, the attorney was acting as what David Maister calls the 'trusted advisor,' challenging the client's beliefs and providing counsel.

It's our obligation to make sure that we're doing what is in the best interests of the client. We don't feed a child only candy and ice cream, even though the child claims that's what they want, because we know that it's our responsibility to care for and protect our children - we need to nurture them and ensure that the actions that we take now by providing them with good eating habits will keep them healthy and help them live a better and more productive life. Challenging our clients' initial assumptions and processes, being helpful but firm, and keeping their best interests in mind are all ways we can be better counselors.

Marketing takes on a whole new meaning when we think about clients as individuals under our care, guidance and protection. When we think about clients the way we think about our children - always wanting what's best for them, giving them our best advice and the best of ourselves, even when we know it isn't necessarily what they want to hear - marketing becomes less about 'selling' our services and more about helping the client be as healthy and productive as they can be.

Treating your client as someone under your care, protection and guidance means educating your clients about the ways in which you can help them. It means protecting them from the competition when you know that no other law firm can provide those particular clients with what you provide, the way you provide it. The more effectively you market - the more people in your target market that you reach with your message, the more people you can care for, guide and protect.

Many thanks to Sean D'Souza of Psychotactics for highlighting the definition of client for me, and for his discussion of clients as people to whom we owe care, guidance and protection.

Legal Ease Consulting, Inc. Allison C. Shields

Click my logo to visit the Lawyer Meltdown website

Disclaimer

This website is for education and information purposes only, is not intended to provide legal advice. No attorney-client relationship exists or is created by the use of my site or the products services described. This site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a professional attorney in your state.